I was flipping through the stations the other day while driving home from work when the one and only Johnny Cash came on the radio. There are certain artists that can transcend their time to where there music is relevant and popular to many decades of listeners. I think Mr. Cash is one of those artists. There are also certain life principles which transcend all ages, race, cultures, time periods, etc... Johnny Cash once made the statement, "Sometimes I am two people. Johnny is the nice one. Cash causes all the trouble. They fight." Maybe he knew and maybe he didn't know but this is a principle stated in the Bible (Romans 7:15-25).The Apostle Paul states, "For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate." (Rom 7:15). Have you ever made up your mind that you are going to do something yet found yourself doing the exact opposite? For example: many people make up their mind to join a gym and get in shape around January. Come March the only thing they are exercising is their wallet to pay a membership they no longer use. Or maybe you had a habit that you wanted to stop (ex: smoking). One day you made up your mind to quit but find yourself sneaking a smoke here and there. Even though this is in the Bible we find that the sentiment is expressed by people like Johnny Cash and experience by all of us in our daily lives. You do not need the Bible to realize that at times you are at war between your "general will" and your "immediate desires". Why is it that we can "generally" make a decision but find that in the "immediate" situation we cannot live up to our wills? The Bible says it is because we have a sinful nature. That is, our natural inclination is to practice evil. Self-control is a discipline while you don't have to try to let yourself go. This is something which can be used in evangelism or even apologetics. It is a universal experience of mankind that we fight between our general wills and immediate desires. Now if we are just molecules in motion, as the new athesists want us to believe, then we shouldn't have conflicting wills. Whatever chemical reaction happens will cause us to do a certain action. Atheism cannot explain how I can seemingly decide to do something and yet allow my desires to take me to the contrary. An even stronger proof is that atheism cannot explain how I can have immediate desires to do something then make the decision to suppress those desires and do the opposite. For example, when someone makes me angry my immediate chemical reaction is to get angry and inflict physical violence upon them. My general will tells me to obey the law of the land and love my enemy. Christianity has an answer for this while atheism fails. Are we just molecules in motion with no real "free will" or do we have the ability to make decisions that overcome the chemical reactions in our brains? The Bible affirms the latter.

Breaking News.......our buddy Richard Dawkins shows that atheism produces moral relativism to a shocking degree. At least we hope people are shocked by his latest comments. So what happened this time? Well he decided to respond to someone through social media who stated that they would be in a real "moral dilemma" if they found out they were going to have a child with Downs Syndrome. Dawkins replied, "Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice". Now to his credit he later said that his comments were "tactlessly vulnerable to misunderstanding". Although, I believe that was simply a PR move because he started a storm of comments.What can we learn from this? Well I beleive a few things. 1) At least there are still people out there who do not want to take moral relativism to its logical conclusion. This is a good sign because it shows that people's hearts are not totally blackened yet. Truly if you believe there is no God then everything is permissible. Thus their conscience is not yet seared to the point of no return. 2) Richard Dawkins still believes in a moral code. Why would he come out and apologize for his comments? If he really doesn't believe in a god then who cares about 'tact' or 'understanding'? To be honest, if there is no god then who cares if we kill the babies? 3) Moral Relativism is atrocious. Most people who like to claim morals are relative only do so to justify their sin. But when we take it all the way home we get statements like what Dawkins said above. It is good to see that people balked at his comments but in reality they shouldn't. If they too believe morals are relative then they cannot, by their own standard (or lack their of), claim what he said is 'wrong'. But it is good to see that it is an atheist, and a world renowned one at that, prove that moral relativism moves a culture into sickening situations. This story is a great example to use for people to awaken their conscious. You can start a conversation by asking them if they think Richard's comments are right or wrong, good or bad, true or not true, etc... If they don't like what he said then you can point out that is because they know inherinetly that there is a standard. This standard being the Law God wrote on their heart. You can also point out the absurdity of believing in moral relativism because they would have to accept his statements even though they instinctively reject them.In the end atheism must believe in moral relativism and relativism is just not practical or appealing. I am glad to see that people on social media rejected Dawkins' comments. Now it is our job to show them why they reject them...because they believe in an absolute moral standard which can only be grounded in God.

The Moral Argument is often misunderstood by the skeptics to Christianity. Basically the point of the argument is to show that we all agree that objective moral values exist and can only be grounded in God's nature. The point is to show that an atheist has no ability to justify their moral convictions. That is, you cannot appeal to opinions, society, majority view, etc... to ground why an act is 'good' or 'evil'. The Moral Argument is as follows: 1) If God does not exist the objective moral values do not exist 2) Objective moral values do exist3) Therefore, God exists

What a skeptic hears is: 1) If you don't believe in God you cannot be good2) You do no believe in God3) Therefore, you can't be good

Now when stated like this hopefully we can all see the two arguments are not saying the same thing. As a Chrisitan Apologist I AM NOT saying an atheist cannot be good, but I AM saying they cannot justify why something is good. I love using this argument because everybody understands that there are some things out there which are absolutely right and wrong.....well at least I thought. It seems as if our world is moving into a new state of depravity. The atheist poster-child, Richard Dawkins, has taken his "genius" to a whole new level in an interview with Time magazine. Evidently he confesses to being molested at a boarding school as a child. But in describing the incident he referred to it as "mild pedophila". He went on to argue, incredibly, that He cannot outright condemn such an act. What is his reasoning?!?! He contends that "you can't condemn people of an earlier era by the standars of ours." WOW!!! This is evolutional morality at its finest.

I have some questions for Mr. Dawkins. First, who is to say that society's morals are better today than they were at the time of your "mild pedophilia" incident? Why is it that we try to justify morality by the calendar? That is, do societies always evolve? If so, then could someone who lived in Nazi Germany say that their morality of exterminating the Jews was a better morality than the 1800's German society? Secondly, by what standard do you condemn anything? For anyone who knows Dawkins they realize he is very strongly opposed to Christianity, to the point that he wants to see it eradicated. Yet how can he believe Christanity to be morally repulsive? Sure America may be going away from God but what about socieites that are moving towards the Christian God? Are they evolving or devolving? If evolving then you cannot argue that Christianity is wrong. If devolving then your whole idea of the world learning morality through evolutionaly means fails because you just admitted socieities do not always evolve. No matter which way you slice it the Moral Argument still stands.

I do have to give Dawkins some credit...he is at least consistent in some sense. Since he doesn't believe in God he can't condemn the act of pedophilia which happened to him. I only wish he would use that same logic when it came to his condeming other things. But he would find, what many others already have, that you cannot live by that ideology. Everyone intuitively knows there are 'good' and 'evil' things in this world. The real question is not 'who can know them?' but 'why are they wrong?".